MEXICO CITY — I cross the street where Cortez crushed the Aztecs, and things start to bubble. A crowd forms, banners appear, T-shirts are donned, chants overtake other chants. From pickup trucks, women distribute free strips of condoms to giddy men who hold them over their heads like trophies. Police are everywhere, some foppish in sombreros on horseback, most deadly with fingers on triggers of automatic weapons. Someone thrusts the string of a pink balloon into my hands and suddenly I’m in an AIDS protest. The mob moves and, surrounded, I move with it. Caught in the frivolity and righteousness of the moment, we inch toward the vast Zocalo plaza where Annie Lennox, in halting Spanish, will encourage us to keep doing what we’re doing. But what exactly are we doing? Among the chaos of fractious voices, it’s hard to discern a clear message, and even harder to know who might be receiving it.

Mexico’s capital, renowned for its street demonstrations, hosted the 17th International AIDS Conference a few weeks ago. It was the first time the International AIDS Society held its signature event in Latin America, where infection rates are on the rise. The classic AIDS red ribbon, deftly redesigned to resemble the local ancient god Quetzalcoatl (the plumed serpent), became the official logo and was plastered everywhere: lampposts, billboards, buses, buildings, tote bags, literature, and (in the form of temporary tattoos) even people. Under this unifying banner 30,000 scientists, activists, politicians, students, and journalists descended upon the largest city in the Western Hemisphere to take stock of the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. Far from a united front, however, the week-long conference highlighted a growing disconnect between the tactics and expectations of AIDS activists, and the scientific realities facing researchers.

The previous conference was held in the much less chaotic city of Toronto, where scientists were optimistic that a cure was in sight. But it has been a very bad year for HIV research; two human trials of Merck’s most promising vaccine were stopped when it was realized that the vaccine may have actually increased HIV susceptibility among some subjects. The problem may have been the adenovirus (common cold virus) used to deliver the candidate vaccine, since everyone’s immune system responds differently to the common cold. But no one’s really sure. Several trials of other potential vaccines have now been delayed. International AIDS Society executive director Craig McClure admitted, “In terms of scientific breakthroughs, this is not the year for breakthroughs.” One word notably scarce in this year’s multifaceted discourse was “cure.”

In light of these scientific setbacks, activists took center stage at this conference — increasing their numbers, their messages, their volume, and ultimately their cacophony. The worst demonstrations were vague, ill-informed, and self-contradicting, but even the best protests either preached to the choir or fell on deaf ears. As the scientists scrambled to find a common path, so too the activists, splintered into an endless barrage of organizations (all requiring money to stay afloat), presented no common path of their own. Considering the limited funding that any predominantly Third World disease is apt to garner, I had to wonder if AIDS activism includes too many disparate voices for its own good.

Not listening
AIDS activists and scientists used to play nicely in the same sandbox, both camps pressuring governments and big pharmaceutical companies to funnel more money into research. Now, activists march straight through convention centers and into lecture halls, interrupting speakers and shutting down panel discussions. This new tactic will not engage the scientific community; it will push them away. Scientists sat stone-faced beneath impotent pleas from PowerPoint screens: “Please respect the right of the speaker to be heard and of other participants to hear the speaker.” One frustrated scientist from Washington, DC, who has been attending these conferences since the 1980s but doubted his future participation, scoffed, “It’s hard to do science when people are yelling at you.”

Art dodgers David S. Bernstein points out some key facts about who voted for Michael Flaherty in “Can Flaherty Woo Yoon?”, but he neglects to mention that, if Sam Yoon had won, he would need the base that voted for Flaherty, and he would also need to woo Flaherty’s support to win the mayor’s seat.

Living with HPV The results are “normal.” I breathe a sigh of relief. But should I be relieved? It’s been two years since I heard a registered nurse tell me “You have HPV,” and I am still getting scraped from the inside out, still making appointments to see doctors, and still terrified that I’ll get cancer.

HIV safety net in jeopardy The 4000 Rhode Islanders living with HIV were on the mind of Dr. David Gifford when he went to Governor Donald L. Carcieri, and then the House Finance Committee, in late 2005 and early this year, with hat in hand.

The changing face of AIDS There’s no doubt that AIDS is a different disease than it was two decades ago. Rebecca Haag wants to make sure we’ll be able to say the same thing 20 years from now.

Visions of hope Shannon Heuklom of Providence spent the past two summers helping at a rural clinic, serving some 2000 HIV-positive patients, that is run by the nonprofit Hope Through Health in the West African nation of Togo.

Walk for AIDS: 25 years Starting at 7:30 this Sunday morning, tens of thousands of walkers, runners, and volunteers will begin gathering by the Hatch Shell on the Boston side of the Charles River Esplanade.